Originally Posted by hamidreza

You want us to forget our legal nuclear technology rights while you are modernizing your nukes. Why???!!!

If you read my entire post you would have seen this:

They need to allow Iran it's right to enrich uraniam for civil uses, which the West do not want.

They are allowed to modernize their nuclear stockpile under NPT. The powers, specifically Russia and U.S have been following NPT for quite some time now. The West do not want this, but I feel it isn't a right call for them to do. However, you must also realize that there have been U.N resolutions calling for Iran to stop enriching and comply with IAEA.

Right I'm comfortable believing that the current regime in Tehran will only enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, given the rhetoric they spout.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Right I'm comfortable believing that the current regime in Tehran will only enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, given the rhetoric they spout.

Which is why the West does not want it, but it truly is their right to be able to enrich their own uranium as long as it is proven to be for peaceful means. The reason this is happening is because IAEA can not prove 100% Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. I also believe Israel should not be in the negotiation process if they are not going to join NPT.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

If you read my entire post you would have seen this:



They are allowed to modernize their nuclear stockpile under NPT. The powers, specifically Russia and U.S have been following NPT for quite some time now. The West do not want this, but I feel it isn't a right call for them to do. However, you must also realize that there have been U.N resolutions calling for Iran to stop enriching and comply with IAEA.

My question has just one answer. The US doesn’t want lose her domination in the world.
Any technology especially new one has the potential to use in military weapons. For example about nuclear technology, you can make nukes. About Space technology, ballistic missile is possible. About Software technology, cyber attack is possible. And the other technologies….
In more than ten years negotiation with the west we have found that the main problem for west is not Iran’s nuclear activities. The main problem is Iran’s independent policies. In Moscow negotiations they suggested us to have just the permission of 3.5% enrichment technology not 20% while this suggestion was Iran’s suggestion at 2 years ago. Even before it at six or seven years ago we suggested them to have just a part of 3.5% enrichment technology and made the last step of it in another country for more trust but they didn’t accept it. Why?
Today the countries such as Japan, South Korea and some European countries who are members of IAEA, like Iran, are allowed to make enriched uranium till 90% or more. So what is the different between them and Iran? The different is that these countries’ security is completely depended to the US but Iran no. These countries politician can’t drink a glass of water without US permission and shall consult with the US before making any decision but Iran isn’t.These countries are in west camp but Iran isn't.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

My question has just one answer. The US doesn’t want lose her domination in the world.
Any technology especially new one has the potential to use in military weapons. For example about nuclear technology, you can make nukes. About Space technology, ballistic missile is possible. About Software technology, cyber attack is possible. And the other technologies….
In more than ten years negotiation with the west we have found that the main problem for west is not Iran’s nuclear activities. The main problem is Iran’s independent policies. In Moscow negotiations they suggested us to have just the permission of 3.5% enrichment technology not 20% while this suggestion was Iran’s suggestion at 2 years ago. Even before it at six or seven years ago we suggested them to have just a part of 3.5% enrichment technology and made the last step of it in another country for more trust but they didn’t accept it. Why?
Today the countries such as Japan, South Korea and some European countries who are members of IAEA, like Iran, allow to make enriched uranium till 90% or more. So what is the different between them and Iran? The different is that these countries’ security is completely depended to the US but Iran no. These countries politician can’t drink a glass of water without US permission and shall consult with the US before making any decision but Iran isn’t.These countries are in west camp but Iran isn't.

The difference is that Iran violated the NPT. They were not trustworthy anymore so the IAEA had to find out if Iran's nuclear program was solely for peacefull purposes. Iran says it is but they also signed the NPT and did not abide by it. All the IAEA wanted was shut down enrigment and proof that the program is peacefull, that's all. Up untill now Iran did neither and then they are amazed about the sanctions.

On the other hand, why does Iran need nuclear power? They have an abundance of oil, but almost no refinery capability. Wouldn't it be better for Iran to invest in that? Now they have to import almost all their gasoline. They also have lot's of sunshine and open skies so why not invest in solar power plants like so many other nations are doing? Who believes a country with one of the biggest oil supplies in the world that says it needs nuclear power for electricity?

Ever wondered why the US is the only superpower left today? If you do in Iran what an average citizen is allowed to do in the US they put you in jail.
The US is still on top of technology, economy (and no, China has not most of the US debt) and freedom and stand by their friends and allies. Thanks to them I'm born in a free country.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

On the other hand, why does Iran need nuclear power? They have an abundance of oil, but almost no refinery capability. Wouldn't it be better for Iran to invest in that? Now they have to import almost all their gasoline. They also have lot's of sunshine and open skies so why not invest in solar power plants like so many other nations are doing? Who believes a country with one of the biggest oil supplies in the world that says it needs nuclear power for electricity?

good suggestions and I will email them to Ahmadinejad to discuss about them in the next cabinet meeting. But I have a better idea. Is it not better for west to prepare a schedule just for Iran which in it the red lines in different sciences and technologies be cleared and specified for us? Then we will know in which technology we will be allowed to invest and in which range. You know about the nuclear energy we thought that the red lines just had been defined in IAEA but it seems there are much more red line except that we thought.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

good suggestions and I will email them to Ahmadinejad to discusses about them in the next cabinet meeting. But I have a better idea. Is it not better for west to prepare a schedule just for Iran which in it the red lines in different sciences and technologies be cleared and specified for us? Then we will know in which technology we will be allowed to invest and in which range. You know about the nuclear energy we thought that the red lines just had been defined in IAEA but it seems there are much more red line except that we thought.

Kick the Mullah's back to their mosques, create a real democracy and make peace with Israel and the west will embrace you and you are in for a marvelous time akin to your great ancesters who were destroyed by religious fanatics.

What could Iran achieve with a few nuclear weapons? The historical record offers a clear answer: very little.

Pessimists worry that a nuclear Iran would be able to blackmail Israel, seize major oil fields, or force the United States out of the Middle East. But they ignore a key lesson of the nuclear age: nuclear weapons are not very useful for coercion. Israel, for example, did not suddenly acquire the ability to push around its neighbors when it obtained nuclear weapons. (If it had, it might have dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons today.) Nor did China, North Korea, South Africa, or any other state that has ever built nuclear weapons. The reality is that nuclear weapons have never been very useful tools of blackmail.

The reason is that nuclear threats lack credibility. If Iran ever used nuclear weapons against one of its neighbors, it would suffer unprecedented international isolation, unify the region against it, and even trigger nuclear retaliation from the United States or Israel. Given these prospects, Iran's neighbors are likely to doubt whether its nuclear threats are actually sincere.

At best, nuclear weapons are credible tools of self-defense. But we need not worry that a nuclear Iran will wield vast new coercive leverage in the Middle East. In 1983, Robert McNamara observed that nuclear weapons "are totally useless - except only to deter one's opponent from using them." This lesson is worth remembering today.

Originally Posted by perseus

Directly yes, but the fear of its potential use is a potent weapon. Would anyone dare to invade Iran if they had a nuclear weapon? Would Iraq have been invaded if they had one?

Why do we want to invade Iran and should Iraq have been invaded at all?

Seems to me the argument over Iranian nuclear weapons is more about keeping Iran at a point where we can dictate their future than protection against any genuine threat a nuclear armed Iran could offer.

Perhaps this says more about our ambitions than Iranian.

No matter what anyone says, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. and not even close to being a threat to the U.S. The forces of the U.S. are so extensive and so overwhelming on so many dimensions that for Iran to attack the U.S. would be sheer madness. The Iranians know this. The U.S. knows this. Israel knows this. Anyone who says or thinks that Iran is a threat to the U.S. that should be taken seriously is talking nonsense.

Iran has no reason for attacking the U.S. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose. It has no national interest at stake. By the same token, the U.S. has no justifiable reason for attacking Iran because Iran is not doing anything that can remotely be construed as aggression against the U.S. Of course, the U.S. can always create an incident to convince gullible Americans that the U.S. must attack Iran.

The public statements by the U.S. on Israel do not unambiguously suggest that the U.S. is reining in Israel as it should. For Obama to say that he wants a diplomatic solution is all well and good, but the fact is that he is not acting diplomatically by serving up one threat after another and tightening the screws on Iran. For Obama to say that he is moving in lockstep with Israel can be taken to mean that he is in control or that Israel is in control or that whatever Israel does meets with U.S. approval. Obama’s language is too ambiguous to be reassuring. It is not even clear from Obama’s public statements that he even knows what he wants from Iran. He has said that he wants their assurance that they will not build a nuclear weapon. They’ve already said this many times, and the IAEA inspectors have access to Iran internally in order to verify it.

The U.S. has a trumped up reason to attack Iran, which is that Iran might develop and produce a nuclear weapon at some point in the future. Even if it did, it still would not be a threat to the U.S. because the U.S. can retaliate with such overwhelming force. Every statement that Iran makes about the use of force is a statement about retaliation against aggression from the U.S. Their threats are statements about how they might defend themselves. If one compares the strength and military experience of the two sides, it is crystal clear that Iran’s threats lack credibility. Whatever harms she might impose are minuscule compared to what the U.S. will do to Iran in a military campaign.

The "military option" is aggression against a people that has done nothing to America and shown no intention to begin aggressing against America. It is the same as the aggression against Iraq in 2003. It is the same as Germany’s aggression against Poland in 1939.